What one thing would disprove Christianity to you?

[Ryft]

Of course I read it. It's in plain English. You were using the "I'm sure" expression in a typical meaning of "I think it's like this, but don't know for sure."

Uh, no. Tough break on the mind-reading, sorry, but that wasn't how I was using it. Next time try rational discourse. It has a much higher success rate.

Are you wanting to entertain the idea that before Christ people would already be aware of the Christian God? And perhaps that they would already be aware of "biblical Christianity"?

Fail. That is not evidence supporting your claim that "back then they weren't aware of your Christian God." If you have none, then so be it. But admit it. I want to know if you are the type of atheist who thinks it is legitimate to make claims without a shred of evidence supporting it, so I know how to evaluate your stance when you respond to others who do the same thing. You're still somewhat new to me so I am still learning about you.

I am not a complete ignorant [sic] of the concept of God claimed by Christians.

Perhaps not. But then that is not the God we were speaking of, as the record clearly shows. You demonstrated and admitted ignorance about the God claimed by biblical Christianity, that is, the one revealed in Scripture through responsible exegesis of the texts. Your job will be a lot easier if you stick to superficial rhetoric, playing the claims of these Christians against those of other Christians. When the smoke clears I will be over here defending the one and only thing I ever defend around here, biblical Christianity, which remains largely ignored and completely unrefuted—at least according to the rules of rational discourse, since irrational twaddle and peanut gallery cackling never amounts to a refutation of anything

And no, I am not going to provide you a theological education. If you are ignorant about the God of biblical Christianity, the systematic theology of Scripture regarding the nature and character of God, then so be it. You are not alone in that ignorance. But it means you are incapable of mounting an intelligible and rational objection against any of it, and frankly that suits me just fine. Another atheist who cannot raise either an intelligible or rational objection against the very thing he presumes to reject.

Hence, my information about said God must be wrong or lacking ...

No, I am willing to wager that you were spot on accurate. I have heard a lot of Christians make those kind of claims about God. The problem is that you were addressing something other than the God at issue, who is not defined by what this Christian and that Christian happens to claim, like some Tim Burton inspired solipsistic nightmare. You want to attack the product of those claims? Go ahead. But don't pretend that's some kind of legitimate substitute for what Scripture claims about God.

(If they said their claims are derived from Scripture, then did you ask where exactly? Or did they offer where? If so, then where in Scripture was that? If not, then shame on you for being so credulous and uncritical.)

As long as I have a different concept from yours, I can't be expected to have a decent conversation.

Nor one that is rational or even intelligible. Your objections must remain hopeless twaddle. But then why are you trying to raise objections against something you are so terribly ignorant about? Young-earth creationists do that with respect to the age of the earth, for example; why would you engage in that sort of behavior? It's just embarrassing.

Like the claim that only your biblical Christianity "holds itself as not only true but necessarily true." What does that say about the others that you ignore?

I don't make boneheaded claims about the beliefs of those whose texts I am ignorant about, the way you did about biblical Christianity. When I describe this or that belief of Hindus I am very circumspect because my knowledge is limited, unlike you who did a running faceplant into a wall of wtf.

However, I do make claims about the truth value of their beliefs (be what they may), which is a very different thing. The particular belief hardly matters; it is part of a not-A worldview and thus necessarily false, given A being true. But maybe there is another worldview out there that also holds itself as necessarily true. I don't know of one. Do you? But it hardly matters; A and not-A cannot both be true, nor both be false. So which one is true? We evaluate each responsibly and see which one is left standing. Spoiler alert: It will always be biblical Christianity.

[Re: It is invalid to conclude that God can't pass a message straight to all of mankind from the fact that he hasn't.]

Hasn't he?

No. It has always been to a covenant representative, like Adam or Israel for example, but never all mankind.

Maybe he did ...

Yeah? There is a maybe about this issue? Okay, show me in Scripture where we can find that.

Or were you fabricating your own god again and trying to imagine it as mine? When you're done I'll be over here with the God you decided to not refute.

The only fact here is that there are many different religions in the world and some of them have been around since before Christianity, if we are to believe the records. Again, if we are to believe the records, well before the Hebrew God was believed there were already other religions.

Yes. And so ... what, exactly? There were religions around before Adam and Eve existed, too. What is your point?

Were these misinterpretations of the Hebrew God's message? Is the Hebrew God a misinterpretation of some other god?

That really depends on 'when' we are talking about, doesn't it? 127,000 years ago there was no message whatsoever from the God of biblical Christianity.

Please derp less. A lot less.

I can't, it's a second nature!

Ah well. Makes my job very, very easy. So be it.

Perhaps not indeed. I'm aiming to have one more fallacy with each reply. ;)

I guess this one counts as the "appeal to ridicule", no?

[yawn] ... No.

Yeah, I read your reply to Tegh. Typical believer stuff: "I believe because I believe and you, unbeliever, can't tackle this belief with your science, because it's in a 'position' where science can't touch it." Did my summary go too wide?

That is an adorable strawman, really. But hey, if that is the only thing you have any hope of defeating, well then, why should I deny you such satisfaction? Enjoy. As for me, I certainly appreciate all the proof that you provide to my claims. I just sit here and it gets handed to me. AND my claims and arguments are left untouched. Too easy.

The question was, "Why do you consider those things irrelevant and unnecessary?"

Um, because they are? Seriously. Describing the reasoning which produced this or that claim of mine has no relevance to the one and only thing that, if shown to be true, would disprove Christianity entirely for me.

Is this it? https://atheistforums.org/thread-1540-po...l#pid30243

It seems like it, but it's hard to tell because that lands us mid-conversation. I read all the way to the end and recognize there's some significant meat missing from that discussion. Either it is in preceding posts or another thread.

P.S. Are we done with the verbal point-and-laugh? Can we get to the rational and circumspect yet?

---

---

I think we do share some of the same basic views about reality.

Except we don't, Tegh. That is what you really need to recognize. It is like you are so hopelessly inured to your belief system that you are incapable of recognizing or even conceiving of any alternative view. No, we do not share in common any views about reality—not even what constitutes reality. The antithesis is fundamental. What we share in common is a skeptical attitude. We are not credulous and gullible. But skepticism is an heuristic device, not any sort of "view about reality."

It's just that religious people like yourself appear to be acting inconsistent with those views that you hold.

Except I don't, as we shall see.

Let's say I have a barn, and I bring you close to the barn and point to it and say, "On the inside there's an interstellar spaceship." Unless you're completely gullible, you wouldn't believe me unless you had some sort of empirical proof. ... [This example] shows how any properly educated adult in modern western civilization would respond ... I'm assuming it's similar to the process [that] you yourself would follow, too.

Of course. I am a skeptic.

But when it comes to existence of angels and demons and heaven and hell, you appear to not apply the same critical evaluation even though it's in the same category as claiming there's a spaceship in my barn ... What's the difference between claiming a spaceship is in my barn and claiming heaven exists? ... Why the inconsistency?

What inconsistency? You're right, I don't apply the same critical evaluation to both—because you're wrong, they are not in the same category. A spaceship is an empirical object, an angel is not. Demanding empirical evidence for a non-empirical object is a categorical error. You make that error. I do not.

So your worldview assumes the existence of heaven and angels ...

No, it does not assume that. Stop characterizing my worldview according to yours.

... but it doesn't assume the existence of the spaceship in my barn?

Why would it?

Why is it you can critically evaluate the existence of the spaceship in my barn but not angels? ... I expect you to be a full blown skeptic when it comes to spaceships in barns but with angels and heaven and hell, you seem to give those things a special pass.

Please do not ignore this question: How did you conclude that I don't critically evaluate the existence of angels? Anticipating that you did not conclude it but rather assumed it, please answer this follow-up question instead: If you assumed it, then why did you think that was a reasonable assumption to make about me?

I esteem logic and reason but I've only been studying it for at most a total of a year.

You will get decent practice at it if you answer the questions I ask you, instead of glossing over them to ask new ones of your own to me.

Then tell me, what constitutes proof to you of the existence of the supernatural beings and things of the Christian religion?

Scripture.

I don't see why we need to get into those issues.

Then you need to read what I invest time in writing because the answer was right in that paragraph: "If you do not have a definition of reality and a set of criteria to be met, then how on earth could you evaluate the claim" that God and angels are consistent with reality?